Any missionary on deputation will find himself answering the following questions.
1. Which translation of the Bible will you use?
2. Will your services be contemporary or traditional?
3. Will you be starting a mission or doing church planting?
4. How far away is the nearest ABA church?
5. Are you going up for associational support?
and I'd be remiss if I didn't include...
6. What do you think of Reach America?
Of course, I did deputation in the aftermath of last year's Texas state meeting, so I also got, "What do you think of Charlie Ellison?" (For what it's worth, he's in my thoughts and prayers, as are all of the South Texas brethren.)
5 comments:
In your mind are those good questions?
What were Paul's priorities in mission work? Do those questions reflect those priorities?
Well, now as far as what translation you use, let's let the Bible be its own commentary. Revelation 22:18,19 says, "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." They're not all the same, and there are differences, major differences. For instance Acts 8:37 in every version I've looked except KJV is either deleted, bracketed, or out in the footnotes.
As far as worship style, that's a little harder to quantify to suit everybody, but I don't think rock and roll guitars or a driving beat have a place in God's house.
As far as the church planting, if you really study the Bible, there is no such thing as a mission in the Word of God. When Paul wrote to the church at Corinth, it was not the name of the church but its location. Also, if you look at the celebrating of the Lord's Supper (which is always a question of how a church and its mission is supposed to observe it), in 1 Corinthians 11:18, it talks about coming together in the church (closed communion). Notice verse 20 says, when ye come together therefore into one place." Think about it. A mission is always considered part of the sponsoring church, which I think this Scripture within itself blows that out of the water. Then you go to Chp. 14:23, it says, "If therefore the whole church be come together into one place." Also, in Acts, you don't see Antioch having authority over the churches Paul established. In Acts 14:23, the churches ordained elders before Paul ever made a report back to Antioch. Now I'm all for guidance and advice and things like that but actually I don't see where it is Scriptural for a church to hold authority over another church body. However, I don't think that we have to change our practice and methods to plant churches instead of starting missions.
While it is our mission to reach the lost, it is important that we teach sound doctrine also, especially about the church. We need to focus on both. I think we also need to be more judicious about who we fellowship with. Landmarkism is about Baptists not fellowshipping other denominations. The problem among Baptists comes in when other Baptists accept false doctrine and fellowship with other denominations. Landmarkism is not divisive, but is taught in God's Word. If it were not in God's Word, we should throw it out. I don't agree with Landmark Baptists fellowshipping with non-Landmark Baptists because it is a fundamental divide in doctrine and practice. In other words, we're not talking about the rapture or something. See what I mean?
You can determine Paul's priorities in mission work by what he wrote to the churches and the pastors in his epistles. These are my casual observations.
Priority 1: The Gospel, Teach it, define it, make sure it becomes the foundation of the faith and fellowship of the church.
Priority 2: Solid doctrine. Paul defended the Gospel with scriptural, doctrinal teaching on salvation, faith, grace, and salvation by grace apart from works.
Priority 3: Protecting the church from false teachers, impurities and heresy. This is where the Lord's Supper comes into play, as well as teachings on exclusion.
Priority 4: Church unity. Philippians has a lot of verses on this, as does I Corinthians.
What I don't see Paul doing is telling the churches they must use the Tanukh (sp?) as opposed to the Septuigin (sp?)... or that they must sing in a certain type of way (in fact, the one time Paul addressed music, he said psalms and hymns and spiritual songs ( the latter of which would include praise choruses) (Eph 5:19, Col 3:16).
Paul rarely addressed associational politics.
So, do those questions reflect the heart and priorities of first-century mission work?
BTW - Rev. 22:18-19 is discussing the Book of Revelation, not the entire Bible. God will punish the altering of His Word, I believe that... but use scriptures in context.
Regarding your last paragraph...
I do believe we should be judicious on who we associate with, but it is my observation that we have moved beyond defending the faith to the point that we are breaking fellowship over things that have no business being points of fellowship. Both sides will claim to have their position backed up in scripture, and will accuse the other side of either compromising or being stuck in the mud.
Examples include the questions that started this thread. The KJV-only position will cite Revelation 22:18-19 and use that to proclaim that all other translations have added to or deleted from God's Word.
The contemporary vs. traditional argument will volley between verses that say "Praise Him with the Psaltery and the Harp (New Leland Translation, haha)" and verses that deal with doing all things decently and in order. I even had one preacher tell me that drums should never be used in worship because in scripture, they were always used for war. Another preacher wrote to the Baptist Monitor that clapping shouldn't be done in worship, because in scripture, clapping always accompanied someone's demise. You see how big the hammers are getting and how ridiculous the argument is getting?
I even have people getting crossways with me because I proposed getting a building and advertising. This is the stuff that drives me crazy.
Questions 4-6 are all political.
If you want to get in the pulpit and defend closed communion, Landmarkism, the true definition of a church, salvation by grace, Baptism as an act of discipleship, not a form of salvation, the all-sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice on the cross for our sins and the Gospel... buddy, I am with you one hundred percent and you're likely going to have to calm me down from getting so excited. But to tie true doctrine to worship style is stretching at best, a violation of scripture at worst (see Romans 14:4).
Post a Comment